Standards of reasoning, administrative procedure, and the protection of urban wetlands

an analysis of judgments by the Chilean Third Environmental Tribunal

Abstract

The implementation of Law No. 21.202 on urban wetlands has sparked an intense legal debate over the balance between environmental protection and urban development. This article examines the role of the Third Environmental Court in shaping the jurisprudence of this regulation, analyzing both its consolidated criteria and the recent interpretive shift concerning the annulment of declarations due to procedural defects. Through the analysis of the landmark cases Mallinko Abtao Lawal, Valle Volcanes, and La Poza and Delta del Trancura, the study explores the standards of reasoning required from the Ministry of the Environment, the limits of the principle of legality, the duty of indigenous consultation, and potential abuse of power. Finally, it contrasts this approach with the Supreme Court’s preventive doctrine and the supervisory role of the Environmental Superintendency, concluding that the fragility of these ecosystems demands a uniform standard grounded in the preventive principle to coherently guide administrative and judicial action.